On the show, scenes are inter-cut with bumper footage that appears to be from security cameras throughout the city. Clearly these shots are meant to represent the fictional software put in place to help the government ferret out terrorists, and Finch and Reese use these same cameras to prevent violent crimes.

Each episode opens with Finch contacting Reese to discuss a name that has emerged from the software program. They use the same methods that Finch developed for the government to investigate and prevent the crime before it’s too late. It’s easy to see from the resources the two men have at their disposal how people could fear a spying, prying government.

Another completely timely aspect of Person Of Interest is the use of up-to-the-minute technology. Though it would be misguided to suggest that the series is lacking in heart due to its reliance on technology, that very technology gives the program its unique angle. It goes without saying that Finch, as designer of the software that sets the show in motion, would have the latest and greatest equipment at his disposal. He employs technology like a second instinct, allowing him to be in the right place at the right time.

Taraji P. Henson as Detective Carter

Reese uses Finch’s handiwork to listen in on phone calls, intercept text messages, and take impossibly clear cell phone photos of those he follows. The team relies on satellite tracking and the network of hidden cameras to discover when and where a crime is going to take place. Technology is more than just a neat plot device on Person Of Interest — it’s almost a character all its own.

OK, so we may look back in a decade or two and regard Person Of Interest as quaint and dated. But the truth is that the show is indicative of life in the second decade of the 21st century in its own way. Person Of Interest stands at the confluence of two totally modern phenomena: technology at the front and center of nearly everyone’s lives and the fear of being watched — whether by the government or well-meaning, mysterious figures who act for justice. This is a series that seems tailor made for 2011, and perhaps that’s why it’s so fascinating to watch.

All Chris Queen wanted to be growing up was a game show host, a weather man, or James Bond. But his writing talent won out.
By day, Chris is a somewhat mild-mannered church communications director, but by night, he keeps his finger on the pulse of pop culture and writes about it. In addition to his Disney obsession (as evidenced by his posts on this website), Chris's interests include college sports -- especially his beloved Georgia Bulldogs -- and a wide variety of music.
A native of Marietta, GA, Chris moved with his family as a child to nearby Covington, GA, where he still makes his home. He is an active charter member of Eastridge Community Church and enjoys spending time with family and friends.
In addition to his work at PJ Media, Chris spent nearly a year as a contributor to NewsReal Blog. He has also written for Celebrations Magazine and two newspapers in Metro Atlanta.
Check out his website, www.chrisqueen.net.

Click here to view the 22 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

22 Comments, 14 Threads

1.
Gloria

I assumed that the inspiration for the TV show was the post-modern philosopher Michel Foucault’s image of the Panopticon in his book “Discipline and Punish.” Foucault believed our modern social order was based on our love of technical rationality. The Panopticon embodies the modern love of observation and discipline. The Panopticon’s purpose was to keep the subject under continual observation and the subject would thereby discipline himself.

The Panopticon, designed by Jeremy Bentham in 1791, was the “ideal” prison for modern times. It consisted of a central observation tower with an encircling building containing prison cells. The observers in the tower could see everybody in the cells all of the time, but the people in the cells could not see the observers, who were hidden from sight in the tower, which was darkened.

Foucault felt the Panopticon captured the essence of the modern age: the powerless are exposed to the relentless gaze of the powerful. The powerless are brought to internalize and act in accordance with the standards and expectations of the powerful, without the powerful actually have to touch or come in contact with the powerless. Furthermore, at any given moment the powerless person does not actually know whether or not he is being watched, so he can never let down his guard and must always act in accordance with the expectations of the powerful. In other words, vigilance supplants torture. The powerful don’t have to touch you nor be seen by you in order to exert their power over you.

In the TV drama, we are taught to like this particular small group of powerful people, since they can “save” us.

Given that the Panopticon design of prisons was used in at least two major countries – England and the United States – for decades and was then supplanted by other designs, I can only conclude that it wasn’t found to work as well as Foucault expected, otherwise we might have rid the world of crime and made all the bad people good….

Regarding the photograph of Taraji P. Henson, I like how she’s wearing her “Love me for my mind” T-shirt top. Sure, all New York City Detectives look like that. Trust me, I grew up in New York City, and I never saw ANY detectives look like that, and I had a lot of friends on the police force. Why does TV always feel compelled that they have to do stuff like that?

I wonder if a western like “Gunsmoke” would stand a chance on TV today? There was a brief time in the 1980s and early 1990s when westerns were making a comeback, like “Lonesome Dove” and especially Clint Eastwood’s academy award winning “Unforgiven.” I wonder why it wouldn’t work now? Not everything in this country came out of a laptop. There actually WAS a little history there, something that was quite interesting. Given all the technology that is drowning us today, I think the simplicity of a good western would be a big hit (and cheap to make, too). Attention Hollywood: There are still fans who like westerns out there!!!

I understand that at least three or four westerns are in development for the near future, including a “reboot” of The Rifleman series that starred Chuck COnners. That doesn’t mean that all of these projects will be picked up by the networks – some may not make it past the pilot stage – but it should be good news for you. At least it’s a step in the right direction….

Westerns would do very well if the writers involved understood what made westerns popular in the first place.
I seriously doubt that Hollywood could produce a western that didn’t turn out to be some kind of sophomoric sappy apology for the western migration of America following the Civil War.
And, of course, no one will be interested in seeing such a show (or movie).

note: this is also the problem with the Iraq/Afghanistan war pictures that are flopping all over the place because they depict the U.S. Soldier as the bad guy.

Do I ever agree with your opinion. Westerns made today would surely be constructed such as to show the white man as evil and exploitative. What used to be gratifying in the old western movies was that almost always good triumphed over evil, plus quite often there was humor.

Fans of westerns may find that they like another current show quite a bit. It’s called Justified and it’s on F/X.

Although it is set in the present day, it takes place mostly in rural Kentucky where Men Are Still Men and Women Are Still Women. The lead character wears a cowboy hat most of the time and has no reluctance to use his gun in the defense of justice and right. Some viewers find him reminiscent of a young Clint Eastwood in his Rawhide or spaghetti Western days.

The series is based on a story by Elmore Leonard, who is involved in the production of the show. Leonard has said that he takes a lot of inspiration from lawmen in the Old West.

Two seasons of the show have already aired and the audience continues to grow. The third season starts January 17.

This series is a must-see on my list as well. I’m burnt out on gimmick shows (Unforgettable), and even CSI is getting stale. The technological premise behind Person of interest is unnerving but doesn’t play to the persecution-paranoia of a movie like Minority Report. A review at Alternet.com referred to Person of Interest as “anti-authoritarian,” but I don’t see that. That would be too obvious, and I suspect is colored by the predisposition of the Alternet reviewer.

This is one of my favorite new shows. It too has a gimmick with the high-speed computing gig. I believe it intrigues those of us who read Vince Flynn and love the character Mitch Rapp. Mitch Rapp is an American Assassin who kicks ass and takes names in the world of terrorism against the U.S. Reece’s character is a bit of a domestic Mitch Rapp where good goes after evil without regard to political correctness.

Person of Interest reminds me considerably of the late 80s series The Equalizer, starring Edward Woodward. Of course The Equalizer didn’t rely on high tech to detect and prevent bad things but the main character was quite reminiscent of the John Reese character in Person of Interest.

I don’t watch much tv, but this is one I watch faithfully. I love it.
My husband even likes it, and we seldom agree on what is worth watching. I hope that this doesn’t put the kiss of death on it, seems every time I find a show I like, it gets cancelled.

Really, the ambiguity that runs like a nerve through this show is a big part of what keeps me returning. Sure, they have the technology and the power of the Panopticon (good reference, Gloria!), but what they don’t have and never can have is knowledge of motivation – so they have ended up sometimes protecting the wrong people. A couple of weeks ago, the show became an explicit example of what can happen when people presume to more knowledge than they can possibly have…a tale for our times!

I haven’t seen all the shows because I am hooked on NCIS LA which runs at the same time. But those that I have watched were fascinating. Yes I own recording equipment but in the past I found that I don’t go back to a recorded show because I lost interest. So, I will have to catch re-runs during the summer. Does anyone know anything about Caviezel’s ancestry? I ask because the name is one of those rare ones found in a Swiss mountain region, formerly quite secluded, now a winter and summer paradise for skiers and mountain climbers etc. It would be nice if Caviezel were to speak up more, he is hard to hear even with the sound turned up. Lastly, I am glad to see the guy from LOST in a somewhat benevolent role, it makes him more likable. I couldn’t stand him in LOST.

Does anyone know anything about Caviezel’s ancestry? I ask because the name is one of those rare ones found in a Swiss mountain region, formerly quite secluded, now a winter and summer paradise for skiers and mountain climbers etc.

You’re absolutely right, he has Swiss (and Irish) ancestry. One of the mini-biographies on his IMDB indicates this: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001029/bio. The specific quote is His surname is Swiss Romansch (Rhaeto-Romanic).. He’s also been struck by lightning! I think you’ll find him quite interesting if you read that page.

Person of Interest is one of my favorite shows this season and of the past several seasons, too. Jim Caviezel’s career all but disintegrated after Passion of the Christ, but I think it’s back better than before. Technology plays a big role in PoI, but it is always subject to the intelligence of the human characters figuring out whether the person of interest is the good guy or the bad guy.